Comments (54)

bibimimi wrote on May 20, 2007 12:26 PM:

Upshot: Iglesias targeted for having integrity, for refusing to be coerced or bought, for upholding his oath of office.

security code: moon

what I'd like to do as I drive past the White House.

Anonymous wrote on May 20, 2007 1:13 PM:

They were reduced to being the hit squad of the Republican Party.

Anonymous wrote on May 20, 2007 1:19 PM:

(Apologies for the off-topic post, but Paul did you get this email I sent a few days ago? It's about the credibility of Steve Benen's "credibility-killing" post last weekend.)

Paul,

As a long-time reader of TPM, I appreciate how you personally have handled corrections, e.g. in the recent Biskupic story. One of the running themes I see on TPM is the critical importance of holding news media to a high standard of accuracy, including being forthright about making corrections on those times when factual errors do creep in.

On May 13, in a piece on McCain's "market stroll", Steve Benen made a factual error, claiming that after McCain's visit 23 market workers were "ambushed, bound, and shot at the same location" - when actually, according to the news reports, the ambush of the market workers' bus took place not at the market itself but somewhere north of Baghdad (presumably as the workers were returning to their homes).

I sent off an email to TPM noting the error as soon as I saw the mistake - and surely I wasn't the only one who did - and some time in the next day or so that sentence was changed. Unfortunately, the resulting sentence doesn't quite make sense. At least one word appears to have been dropped during editing, and the resulting sentence is awkward. But, the attempt to correct the factual error was apparently made, and that it doesn't pass my first-grader's "five-star sentence" check list (which includes "makes sense" along proper spelling, punctuation, etc.) isn't that big a deal.

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/014108.php

Here's the problem I have with the story as it stands now: there is no indication that the post was corrected: no "updated", "edited" or "corrected" tag; no "corrrections" page anywhere on the website. I don't know how long the original vesion of the story was posted and how many people saw it, but I doubt that anyone who wasn't looking specifically for a correction would have gone back and looked closely enough to see that a change had been made. Anyone who read the original story would be left with the impression that a massacre had occured on the very site where McCain had staged his photo op - dramatic, but untrue. And I don't think that lack of transparency is fair to the readers. I often scan back over the previous day's posts to see if there are updates, but I certainly don't take the time to reread each one word for word.

Well, I'm tempted to go off on a tangent of how Rove and Co. use errors like these to start or propagate rumors and memes, but I hope I've already made my point. I sent an email to talk@talkingpointsmemo.com a couple of days ago but no reply; I'm hoping this one gets through.

Thanks for taking time to read this, and thank you - and the whole TPM team - for engaging in the kind of responsible, ethical journalism that daily gives me hope for our future as a democracy.

TheraP wrote on May 20, 2007 1:21 PM:

Do you get the sense of buzzards circling?

They can circle the wagons all they want, but the buzzards can get inside anyway!

MisterApologist wrote on May 20, 2007 1:31 PM:

On my website I’ve exposed Monica Goodling and her boyfriend/Assistant US Attorney for Virginia Richard Parker (with 4 pictures)…. (she most likely got him the job)
(http://misterapologist.blogspot.com/)

Its already been reported that the US Attorney for Western Virginia, John Brownlee, was the FIRST name on the list of 5 possible candidates for firing ……

… Perhaps it would be pertinent to ask how Goodling’s boyfriend got the job as Assistant U.S. Attorney in Virginia… and perhaps it might be a good time to figure out why the US Attorney from Virginia (a battleground state) was put on the termination list….

Mrs Panstreppon wrote on May 20, 2007 2:21 PM:

Pat Rogers is director and secretary of the American Center for Voting Rights Legislative Fund, a GOP front set up to disenfranchise poor and minority voters.

On 10/11/06, the American Center For Voting Rights Fund filed a brief of amicus curiae in support of the voter i.d. law(link below). The brief is signed by Patrick J. Rogers and Megan T. Muirhead of Modrall, Sperling, Roehl, Harris and Sisk, P.A. as attorneys for Amicus ACVR.

The ACVRF brief didn't come up at dinner? Bullshit.

I posted about ACVRF in TPM MR a couple of weeks ago:

http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/003157.php

Brad Blog has lots of info on the ACVR and ACVRF.

Mrs Panstreppon wrote on May 20, 2007 3:01 PM:

Oops! I forgot to mention that Rogers and the ACVRF filed the brief in New Mexico. I bet Rogers et al thought a juicy case of voter fraud would help get the voter i.d. bill passed.

We all know which side is helped by voter i.d. laws, don't we?

NitPicker2 wrote on May 20, 2007 3:14 PM:

Mister Apologist:

Interesting photos you've posted. But the body language in no way suggests a romantic relationship between the two as you've alleged. You need more than photos where people just happen to be standing or sitting next to each other.

Anonymous at 1:19:

Why bother the rest of us with nits you've already picked with tpm?

Mrs P is a helpful buzzard. You could be helpful too.

Anonymous wrote on May 20, 2007 4:17 PM:

Question that has been bothering me: How did people outside DOJ -- connected with the GOP and White House -- know about internal US Attorney classified activities?

Whether its a member of Congress or a lawyer, it seems strange that people outside DOJ -- supposedly without access to classified US Attorney investigations and prosecutions -- would claim that they "disagree" with something that had not yet been publicly disclosed.

A. How did these people outside DOJ get access to this information?

B. If they did not get access to this information -- and they are not really concerned about information that supposedly was classified US attorney information -- what was their real concern prompting the meeting?

C. If they did have access to this US Attorney information, what is the means by which classified US Attorney activities are being understood, reviewed, and commented on?

D. How is the information related to this classified US Attorney activity getting captured, retained, transferred?

E. Are NSA contractors illegally monitoring US Attorney actions, and providing status of the DOJ internal activities through the NSA data capture systems, through intermediaries to the GOP?

F. Is the same "program" [apparently used to capture US Attorney internal discussions] also being used to transfer data which has been illegally used to justify prisoner abuse, torture, rendition, and war crimes?

Either the GOP has access to classified US Attorney information that it should not have, and this information has been illegally captured through NSA contractors and unlawfully used in a new "program,"; or the real reason for the firings has nothing to with internal deliberations related to the US Attorney ongoing investigations, but something else.

Which is it? Either the "reason" for the firings is bogus and it's something else; or there's a bigger problem: The US Attorney internal deliberations have been compromised, and transferred -- through some means, TBD -- which does not apparently comply with FISA, and is not something the FISA court appears to understand.

1. How many FISA Court deliberations were captured by NSA contractors?

2. What is the "third" branch of government's "view" of the NSA contractors reviewing internal deliberations of the Judicial Branch?

3. Does the 'third branch" particularly care that the NSA contractors regularly review the Judicial Branch activities, but don't bother to inform the FISA court that the Judicial Branch has been targeted by NSA contractors?

4. How many legal counsel working for DOJ and the EOP -- now outside counsel -- have lied to the FISA court about what the NSA is monitoring; and the extent to which outside counsel connected with GOP have been given information about classified judicial branch internal deliberations?

5. Is the "third" branch of government concerned with legal counsel who might have been lying to the courts about how they mysteriously got access to information about internal FISA court deliberations?

6. Did the third branch ever think to review whether NSA contractors were or were not illegally transferring data related to judicial branch internal operations to outside parties connected with the GOP?

Steve5117 wrote on May 20, 2007 4:57 PM:

Anon@4:17 Are you blind? Can you not see that once Bush was reelected the administration went wild ignoring justice and did anything and everything they could to empower republicans discredit democrats.

The machinations of George W. Bush and his administration has already assured his place in history as the worst President this nation has ever had. I hope I live long enough to see George, Dick and Alberto tried for high crimes and treason.

NitPicker1 wrote on May 20, 2007 5:39 PM:

NitPicker2: "Why bother the rest of us with nits you've already picked with tpm?"

Because for whatever reason the emails I've sent have not, apparently, gotten through. Hence the apology for being off-topic.

In any case, the original error was, in my opinion, pretty big, and of the rumor-generating sort that we regularly decry when used make Democrats look bad. I am glad to see that someone tried to fix it.

However, I don't think it is a "nit" that the story was changed at some point well after the initial publication, without any indication that a revision - a factual correction - had been made. Maybe that happens all the time here, and I've never noticed. But that is the point - such corrections *should* be noticeable.

As for whether or not I am "helpful", how would you know? I didn't sign my name. For all you know I could be Mrs. P herself. (I'm not.)

For what it's worth, I agree with you about the Goodling photos.

Pissed Off American wrote on May 20, 2007 5:57 PM:

NitPicker1........

All last weekend the AIPAC website ran a lead article claiming that Iran was refusing to let the IAEA inspecters in to inspect its Nanatz facility. Meanwhile, the IAEA was attempting to expose the deception by issuing public statements that they did in fact already have a team at the Nanatz facility, and Iran had engaged in no such blockage of the inspection process.

Instead of a retraction, AIPAC, sometime Monday morning, removed the article, and interestingly enough, did not archive it. It simply dissappeared.

I am curious. Are you as incensed by the agents of a foreign nation targeting propaganda programs at American citizens as you are by a progressive website making mistakes they attempt to rectify?

Steve5117 wrote on May 20, 2007 6:05 PM:

Anon@4:17

Okay, Ive settled down. Here's what I see as of now. Rove and company mounted an assult against truth, justice and the American way of life that has many tenacles reaching throughout every government agency.

We can see the results of this administration's policies. The FDA doesn't inspect food any more and who suffers. Bush's appointees have ignored laws by not taking action against connected people and their companies or organizations.

Perhaps Mrs Panstrappon will live long enough to audit all the contracts that were awarded. It is not just that contracts were awarded to connected outfits, I'll wager we will discover that many of the contractors faided to deliver, whether it was shoddy workmanship or non-performance, Bush's people have been screwing us royally.

I've beleived for many years that the folks at NSA had been listening in on occasion. I sure there were several progams that involved NSA and can imagine some sinister senarios from the way both Comey and Gonzales danced around the issue. Perhaps someday the "secrets" will be revealed but I think the BIG secret, since POTUS beleives he is above the law, is that he purposely broke the law and Ashcroft caught him.

Now the matter of the firing of the USA's is just anothe tenacle of Rove's master plan to put loyal Bushies in positions where they can subvert justice. Among these steps were the cry wolf voter fraud scam, the remove demorcatic voter names off voter rolls, encourage voter ID laws, convince Americans that electronic voting machines with no paper trails are safe...

Everywhere I look I see the results of Bush's policies - waste, injustice and death.

I wonder if George W. Bush really has the capacity to think.

paul lukasiak wrote on May 20, 2007 6:28 PM:

Question that has been bothering me: How did people outside DOJ -- connected with the GOP and White House -- know about internal US Attorney classified activities?

In the instance of this specific corruption case, there was an FBI investigation whose results were turned over to Iglesias' office. GOP operatives were probably keeping close track of the investigation -- and may have been responsible for initiating it. And because investigations of local public officials usually involve (in some way or other) more than Federal agencies, the opportunity for inappropriate disclosure goes well beyond not just the USA's office, but the FBI as well.

**************
re: nitpicker -- give him a break. TPM apparently does not have the capacity to respond to all emails, and he has a valid point. Its not like there is a thread for "general concerns", nor is it as if everyone always stays "on topic" here.

***************
personal note: Mrs P should be TPM's next hire.

ifthethunderdontgetya™³²®© wrote on May 20, 2007 6:38 PM:

personal note: Mrs P should be TPM's next hire.

I agree with paul!

voicesraised wrote on May 20, 2007 7:18 PM:

Here's another vote to hire Mrs. P. She is absolute gold; I actually find myself smiling when I spot her posts.

"Cleverness is never sufficient to produce knowledge."
Theoprastus Bombastus von Hohenheim [Paracelsus] (1493 - 1541)

SC: memory. As in "down the memory hole he goes..."

Steve5117 wrote on May 20, 2007 7:52 PM:

I too endorse Mrs. Panstreppon for a position at TPM. However I do beleive she mentioned in one her posts that she was retired. Whether or not she would succomb to the opportunity to help America reverse it's course from the disaterous direction he has led us, I would insist that she became Auditor General for the committee that will be appointed to return our government back to the people.

I am a very new member of TPM and Mrs. P's research abilities are not only outstanding, her comments are priceless at times.

How are things in Huntington, Mrs. P?

TheraP wrote on May 20, 2007 8:13 PM:

Mrs P,

As I told you before, you are going to be more famous than the Alaska truck driver.

I recommend we put Mrs P in a room with several impatient 8 years olds - for the summer. In no time the missing emails, together with all attachments (including editions and editors) will be forthcoming. (along with an unending stream of evidence against the crime family cronies ruining our nation)

Not only that, but when you get Mrs P, you get all her aliases as well!

Mrs P has been waiting some time for recognition. It seems that now is her time. Her prodigious research efforts deserve wider recognition!

Steve5117 wrote on May 20, 2007 8:24 PM:

Aliases and multiple personalities will be acceptable, but only one paycheck.

Steve5117 wrote on May 20, 2007 8:33 PM:

There was an interesting segment on 60 minutes about the Deepwater Coast Guard project that would be a great project for Mrs. P.

$100M tied up in 8 converted ships that are tied up at Curtis Bay Coast Guard yard in Baltimore. They are not seaworthy. CG subbed out contract to Lockheed/Grumman outfit to design and oversee project. They awarded build contract to themselves.

Go to work Mrs. P.

TheraP wrote on May 20, 2007 8:58 PM:

Steve5117 - one salary, of course!

Or perhaps pro bono - who knows?

But for anyone who has not checked her blog at the cafe, you are in for a deluge of information - and woe unto those whose misdeeds come within her purview!

She is on a mission and dogged as a bloodhound.

Steve5117 wrote on May 20, 2007 9:22 PM:

Mrs. P's cafe blog is wonderful. I'm working my way forward through them.

I haven't looked at your past postings yet, will I be as intrigued and facinated with your's as I am with Mrs. P's?

TheraP wrote on May 20, 2007 9:29 PM:

Not much there from me, just a few ideas and kids' stories (to put the current problems in language easy enough for a kid to understand). Skip me and stick with Mrs. P.

Also, take a look at Citizen92's blog. Only one post. But Mrs. P has worked hard on that topic as well.

shipwreckedcrew wrote on May 20, 2007 9:42 PM:

You mean the investigation of corruption involving the construction of the new federal courthouse in New Mexico?

The investigation that produced indictments of a few high profile New Mexico democrats in the last couple of months?

The investigation that EVERYONE, on both sides of the aisle, knew was going to result in indictments of Democrat politicos in New Mexico?

The investigation that had been on the front pages of New Mexico newspapers for months?

Is the inhabitants of this blog the same people who condemned Lawrence Walsh for indicting Caspar Weinberger 4 days before the 1988 general election?

I didn't think so.

Anonymous wrote on May 20, 2007 9:44 PM:

Follow-up: What is to be done about the inapprorpirate WH/EOP/GOP access to DoJ investigation data. I'm not satisifed with the answer that this happens all the time; or that there are leaks. Same problem happened with Plame, and was not resolved.

"In the instance of this specific corruption case, there was an FBI investigation whose results were turned over to Iglesias' office. GOP operatives were probably keeping close track of the investigation -- and may have been responsible for initiating it. And because investigations of local public officials usually involve (in some way or other) more than Federal agencies, the opportunity for inappropriate disclosure goes well beyond not just the USA's office, but the FBI as well."

Great, who's looking at this:

A. Inappropriate access by the WH/EOP of the DOJ investigations;

B. Inappropriate release of information from the FBI to the GOP and White House;

C. Premature release of information from classified sources and files outside the DOJ?

If we agree that the common problem is an inappropirate access by the WH to confidential DOJ actiavities, teh qustion on teh table remains:

1. How did the information get transferred from the DOJ to the White House/GOP and members of Congress related to New Mexico;

2. Where is the leadership in Congress calling for a review of the inappropriate access by GOP to this confidential information;

3. What it is going to take to determine -- as was not done in the Plame case -- how the security guidlines were breached; who is at fault; which information was inappropriate used and access; and who is involved; and what needs to be done to correct this situation.

4. What common problems are there in DOJ, US Attorney, FBI, and the WH-EOP in re information handling; and how has this been compromised by the GOP as it relates to status of US Attorney investigations/prosecutions; and what will be dont to ensure these security breaches are resolved, not used for partisan gain?

5. How have the NSLs have been used to target people, keep them silent, and slap them with a gag order simply because someone in the FBI-GOP says that someone needs to be kept quiet.

6. How many "confidential investigation targets using an NSLs" were slapped with an NSL not because of a desire to protect a bonafide secret, but to gag people involved to keep them silent about the GOP-DOJ-WH-EOP abuse of these NSLs and investigations and retalation against witnesses of the original abuse?

the truth will out wrote on May 20, 2007 9:57 PM:

Follow the trolls....

Trolls are a sure sign the tracks are "warm." (sc)

Anonymous wrote on May 20, 2007 10:03 PM:

http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/003253.php

Follow-up to:

"Anon@4:17 Are you blind? Can you not see that once Bush was reelected the administration went wild ignoring justice and did anything and everything they could to empower republicans discredit democrats."
"The machinations of George W. Bush and his administration has already assured his place in history as the worst President this nation has ever had. I hope I live long enough to see George, Dick and Alberto tried for high crimes and treason."
Posted by: Steve5117
Date: May 20, 2007 04:57 PM
-----

Great: We can agree on one thing: That there's a legal problem; and the US Attorney under Title 28 has an obligation to inform Congress in writing that he does not plan to enforce the law.

Who is going to review which illegal activity Gonzalez did not inform Congress of -- as required by Title 28 -- and who is going to provide this information to the Grand Jury so that indictments may be issued outside Congress to prosecute Gonzalez?

Gonzalez is not "only punishable" by impeachment, but he can be prosecuted for failing to comply with Title 28 mandatory notification requirements to Congress.

A. Who in Congress knows about the Title 28 mandatory notification requirements, but has not followed up with Gonzalez to review why he did not notify the Congress in writing that he was not going to enforce the law;

B. Where are the records -- and known gaps in the DoJ Workflows -- where there should have been notifications to Congress per Title 28?

C. When were these gaps in the DoJ workflows known to DoJ Staff personnel

D. When did DoJ Staff counsel -- subject to attorney disciplinary standards and DOJ OPR review -- know about the failure of Gonzalez to provide the required Title 28 reports to Congress;

E. What is the status of the DOJ OPR review and report to Congress on what it knows about specific DOJ Staff counsel who knew that Title 28 requirements were not being enforced, but did not -- as required under DOJ OPR rules for attorney conduct in reporting DOJ Staff counsel misconduct -- report this information of known violations of Title 28?

F. Which Members of Congress -- specifically the Senate GOP -- knew about the known violations of the Attorney General in re Title 28, but have not fully asserted their 5 USC 3331 oath of office requirement to ensure that the laws are fully followed?

G. Who in the DOJ has provided the information to the Grand Jury to review this known violations of Title 28;

H. What is the plan of the DOJ Staff counsel to fully disclose the status of any and all subpoenas currently issued to gag people from discussing the known illegal activity which Gonzalez has not reported to Congress -- as required -- that he will not enforce, per Title 28?

I. Which NSA contractors have been gagged from discussing their known intercepts of illegal activity as it relates to DOJ, EOP, WH, and the GOP;

J. What is the plan of the Grand Jury to review the known contracts NSA contractors have on contract that allows them to access media messages related to NSA contractor intercepts of domestic targets

K. When is the Grand Jury going to publicly discuss the reviews it has done on the Title 28 known violations; and what action is required to ensure that Gonzalez is prosecuted for failing to comply with Title 28 mandatory reporting requirements when the AG decides not to enforce the law?

L. What is the grand jury going to do to review how subpoenas have been issued not with the goal of gathering information to prosecute, but to gag witnesses who have been given access to confidential NSA information sent through non-official instant messaging systems, in breach of NSA security protocols?

M. In light of the German prosecutors stating that Germany will not take action on allegations of war crimes by US government officials, and their assertion that US legal process can prosecute war crimes, what is the status of the grand jury review of these allegations of war crimes by the AG; and when does the Grand Jury plan to review this information -- or is the grand jury being manipulated to delay releasing information because it will be "bad news" for both the DNC and GOP on issues of war crimes, and decisions not to prosecute?

N. Does the US Attorney handling this grand jury reviewing AG Gonzalez alleged war crimes and illegal activity have a credible case to suggest that -- unlike the leaks to the GOP in re the US Attorney firings and incitements -- that the investigation into AG Gonzalez is not going to be compromised; or that the so called "normal pattern of FBI leaks to the GOP on investigations" is going to end so that the GOP and AG Gonzalez do not get a heads up about the full war crimes indictments, evidence, and subpoenas being issued related to alleged AG Gonzalez illegal activity?

shipwreckedcrew wrote on May 20, 2007 10:14 PM:

What is this magical section in Title 28 that is to be the subject of this grand jury investigation and prosecution of the AG.

Its amazing that in such a long and nonsensical post you could avoid mentioning the section number altogether.

Title 28 is pretty big. It starts with Sec. 1 and ends with Sec. 4001. In my book, it covers about 550 pages with very small type.

So, be a little more specific and save me a bunch of reading.

Anonymous wrote on May 20, 2007 10:22 PM:

Shipwreckedcrew [ May 20, 2007 10:14 PM ],

28 § 530D
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/uscode28/usc_sec_28_00000530---D000-.html

Thank you for your interest.

sc: Roll, "Roll with it."

Anonymous wrote on May 20, 2007 10:29 PM:

Title 28 isn't the only one. The same argument DOJ AG gave to not provide these Title 28 reports to Congress, and the President blocked DOJ OPR from reviewing, relates to to the FISA non-sense arguments.

Title 28 and Title 50 deviations are linked to the President and AG through the common problem: A joint decision not to notify Congress or FISA Court of the decision to ignore the law.

Here's the Title 50 requirement for the President, which is not the same, but similar to, the title 28 requirement for AG:

50 § 1802
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode50/usc_sec_50_00001802----000-.html

Anonymous wrote on May 20, 2007 10:59 PM:

There are two ways to lawfully punish Gonzalez.

1. Impeachment, which Congress refuses to do

2. Prosecutions, which the President with US Attorney firings has blocked
Unless a miracle happens, the third way is as follows: State Attorney Generals may lawfully prosecute Gonzalez for failing/refusing to ensure the states are provided a guaranteed enforcement mechanism.

"Section 4. The United States shall guarantee to every state in this union a republican form of government". If there is no "enforcement" -- as is required under a Republic, then the states have been denied their AIV, S4 guarantee.
In general, there are two categories of prosecutions: Federal, or state level. If the Congress and President aren't going to prosecute Gonzalez for the known Title 28 violations -- failing to report his decision not to enforce the law -- then the States and grand juries have a job to do.

A. Where's the leadership in the American legal community, or are we going to hear a litany of excuses why the American legal community have "no role" in this, despite their DUTY to protect the Constitution?

B. How many lazy lawyers know about the Title 28 and Title 50 requirements -- and that they have not been met -- but have NO PLAN to coordinate information with the States or Grand Juries to ensure the Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land?

Note closely the language, which does not exclude the possibility of a NEW Constitution: "This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof . . .shall be the supreme law of the land"

What is the excuse of the lazy legal profession to allow, permit, and not block this reckless conduct by Court officers -- JUDGES -- from assuaging, approving, and not blocking NSLs, subpoenas, and other warrants used to Target, harass, and annoy American civilians who have information about this illegal activity, and the decision of Members of Congress to do nothing about the known Title 28 and Title 50 violations by Gonzalez?

[ Article VI: "the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding" ]
I expect some answers. I would like, and it would please me, if someone in the legal community -- other than Jonathan Turley at Georgetown -- might get off their rear end, gather the information, and issue indictments through their state attorney generals and prosecute the Attorney General. The US government, Congress, and grand juries led by lazy US Attorneys appear to have no plan to do anything about this, but let the Constitution flounder in the wind.

Translation: It is 2007, there are 18 months until the 2008 election. This American government is going to be hard pressed to convince any American that we should "put up with" sitting around for the next 18 months while Congress "get around" to doing nothing. They were elected in 2006 to change, not make the perpetual excuse, "Oh, but there's an election." Hay, elections are there not as excuses to do nothing, but the opposite: To ensure the government remains accountable to We the People.

The lazy American legal community -- despite clearly promulgated Title 28 and Title 50 requirements on the AG and President -- apparently can't figure out what the Constitution, oath of office, or their legal duties mean; and have to be apparently reminded by the public what their oath of office means: To enforce the Constitution, and ensure the states have an enforcement mechanism of the law, not what we have: Reckless buffoonery by lazy, incompetent legal counsel in DOJ who apparently can't tell the difference between a good attorney and a bad one. This isn't about AG, but the broader recklessness in the American legal community that waits 6 years since 2001 to finally "get around" to reading the statutes. "Oh, you mean we're supposed to enforce those against the AG; and we should prosecute him at the state level as we could the President?"

Yes, talk to Jonathan Turley at Georgetown U how state officials can lawfully prosecute the AG and President OUTSIDE the impeachment process. There are clear legal requirements which the AG has allegedly failed to comply; yet this lazy Congress and American legal community apparently can't figure this out. What is the plan to review the qualifications of the Congressional staff counsel and determine what their problem is in ensuring their Constitution is fully enforced as they took an oath to do? There is no reason any American should have to put up with this reckless leadership in Congress; and no reason any American for one more day should have to put up with this non-sense leadership in Congress that refuses to throw to book at the AG and this President. As always, when left to their own devices, the lazy Congress and legal community must be reminded by We the People what their job is; what needs to be done; and what the legal consequences shall be if they refuse to comply with the law: Jail time, prosecutions.

The idea of an impeachment is to ensure that the President is denied the ability to pardon anyone. The DNC is missing an opportunity to trump this President's apparent promise to pardon anyone involved with illegal activity, war crimes, and grave breaches of the Supreme Law. If Impeachment isn't on the table, then it's time to put a NEW CONSTITUTION on the table -- one that will compel Congress to act; one that will force investigations; and one that will deny the President and Congress the ability to sit on their fat rear ends and do nothing about the lazy legal community which remains complicit with war crimes, rendition, prisoner abuse, and grave breaches of Geneva.

trank wrote on May 20, 2007 11:13 PM:

was rogers in denial about real documented possibilities indicating systematic GOP election fraud, or state dem corruption, and wanted to relieve his own anxieties, or was he acting for rove to benefit the party?

trank wrote on May 20, 2007 11:20 PM:

ask the local talk radio blowhards at KKOB 770 Albuquerque if they got ques from Rogers to suggest dem or illegal alien vote fraud. ask jim villanuchi and pat frisch if they got messages from rogers before they started suggesting dem and illegal alien vote fraud on the radio all over the state (and up into wyoming , too).

shipwreckedcrew wrote on May 21, 2007 6:02 AM:

28 USC Sec. 530D????

You sure you want to stick with that answer Dufus?

You might want to start with reading it before running off full-cocked with some leftwingnutroots idea.

Consider its language:

(a) Report.—
(1) In general.— The Attorney General shall submit to the Congress a report of any instance in which the Attorney General or any officer of the Department of Justice—
(A) establishes or implements a formal or informal policy to refrain—
(i) from enforcing, applying, or administering any provision of any Federal statute, rule, regulation, program, policy, or other law whose enforcement, application, or administration is within the responsibility of the Attorney General or such officer ON THE GROUNDS THAT SUCH PROVISION IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

The caps are mine for emphasis. Do you understand that?

A non-leftwingnutroot like myself would read this "reporting" requirement as an obligation on the part of the AG to report to Congress when DOJ has made a determination that a particular statute passed by Congress is believed to be unconstitutional, and will not be enforced until the question can be resolved.

It does NOT mean that the AG has to report to Congress everytime DOJ makes a decision involving prosecutorial discretion to not pursue a particular matter against a particular person or organization.

And, I'm not even going to mention what an idiot you are for suggesting that the AG can be "prosecuted" for failing to "report" to Congress under this section -- except that I just did.

Care to try again?

bordersmuggler wrote on May 21, 2007 7:45 AM:

the truth will out @May 20, 2007 09:57 PM

Follow the trolls....

Trolls are a sure sign the tracks are "warm."

Comment worth remembering.

bordersmuggler wrote on May 21, 2007 7:59 AM:

If Mrs. P. can't be induced out of retirement, perhaps she can be persuaded to offer a master class to a select group of devotees, to propagate that prodigious set of skills she has mastered in the interest of truth.

TheraP wrote on May 21, 2007 9:11 AM:

Maybe Mrs P needs a security detail - or perhaps she has covered her tracks well.

Stay safe, Mrs P.....

Michele wrote on May 21, 2007 10:42 AM:

I agree with nitpicker. Blogs, especially, are under attack by the MSM as being run by "men who still live in their mother's basements" (Bryan Burroughs in a recent New York Times book review). Obviously no one here would quibble about the important work many blogs do, but if relevant blogs like TPM want to maintain a modicum of credibility, they have to adhere to very high standards--unfortunately higher than their mainstream counterparts. The argument that AIPAC doesn't abide by high standards or that the MSM doesn't and that we are required to have some sort of pissed-off-ometer to gauge if we are as pissed at them as we are at a blog we support is as juvenile as the "but all my friends are doing it" excuse. Who cares what AIPAC does? This is not about them.

TPM is my refuge in a storm of misinformation. I appreciate the efforts by the staff and the readers to keep it honest and relevant.

Mrs Panstreppon wrote on May 21, 2007 11:16 AM:

Thanks for all of the compliments! FYI, I would love to be paid for what I do. Ideally, someone would leave a big pile of cash at my front door with a note telling me to go to it.

I don't know about being famous but I heard that a bunch of Bangladeshis have been reading my latest TPM Cafe posts about former Rep. Curt Weldon (R-PA) and Bangladesh.

markg8 wrote on May 21, 2007 11:38 AM:

I agree with nitpicker 1. While Steve Benen is generally an excellent weekend host, as is the other guy, when mistakes are made they should be fully corrected and noted as such. Unless that's done then it lessens the site's credibility.

In the post yesterday about Gingrich whining about anti religion bias in America Steve wrote this:

"I can’t remember the last month Time and/or Newsweek didn’t feature religion as a cover story"

Maybe he can't remember but I can and that's an obvious factual error that ought to be corrected. Because it steps on an otherwise good post.

Excusing mistakes because wingnut sites are mostly factfree and a lot of the rest of the media aren't much better doesn't fly. If we're only interested in living up to their standards the world's in big trouble.

irina wrote on May 21, 2007 12:07 PM:

Thank you anon. I will be using these questions to ask Waxman, the other chairman heads and members and my reps.

Anonymous wrote on May 21, 2007 6:46 PM:

Posted by: shipwreckedcrew
Date: May 21, 2007 06:02 AM

You missed a key word: "OR"

You've written the statute and quoted it as if [my words] if those requirements are not met, then nothing will happen.

Wrong. Try again.

There's an "OR" after B; meaning that Either A. OR B. OR C apply.

Finding that one item "does not apply" [TBD] doesn't address the other two possibilites, which remain requirements.

Reading the statute: The AG SHALL submit a report when
A. He establishes a policy;
B. He dtermines something; OR OR OR
C. He approves something.

In other words, given we haven't reviewed what he did or didn't do, there's no basis to say that he has or has not fully complied; yet, all the info we have says he has

1. Established a policy not to report to Congress;
2. Established a poicy to ignore the FISA courrt, but has not informed COngress of that decision;
3. Established a policy to ignore the Constution with the direct appointment of personnel outside the Constitution

- - - -

Going back to A, this means that the "OR" says that once the AG establisehd as policy that doesn't do what it should, is required, or must do to meet the Constitutional, FISA, or GEneva requirements, then he needs to submit a report.

--------------
HERE IT IS, not the "OR" after B, which attaches to both A, B, and C

"(A) establishes or implements a formal or informal policy to refrain—
(i) from enforcing, applying, or administering any provision of any Federal statute, rule, regulation, program, policy, or other law whose enforcement, application, or administration is within the responsibility of the Attorney General or such officer on the grounds that such provision is unconstitutional; or"

From what we know: the AG does have a policy of not enforcing the Geneva Conventions, as he has an obligation to enforce. This is evidenced by the NSLs which illegally captured information; and then used that information to support warrantless surveillance/interrogations without attorneys; and transfer of data outside NSA to support prisoner abuse.

===================================

READ THE "OR"

(B) determines—

(i) to contest affirmatively, in any judicial, administrative, or other proceeding, the constitutionality of any provision of any Federal statute, rule, regulation, program, policy, or other law; or

(ii) to refrain (on the grounds that the provision is unconstitutional) from defending or asserting, in any judicial, administrative, or other proceeding, the constitutionality of any provision of any Federal statute, rule, regulation, program, policy, or other law, or not to appeal or request review of any judicial, administrative, or other determination adversely affecting the constitutionality of any such provision; or

- - - - - - - - -

You are free to ignore the "OR"; just as the AG has done. Bottom line: There's ample evidence that the AG has [a] ignored the statutory requirements; [b] just as you, does not understand what "shall" and "Or" mean; and [c] despite clear reporting requirements in Title 28 for the situations related to FISA, rendition, prisoner abuse, NSLs, the AG has not complied with the mandatory reporting requirements.

It appears someone can't read what "shall" and "OR" mean in the context of Geneva, war crimes, prisoner abuse, and the AG's oath of office to fully enforce and comply with this statutory requirements.

Stop looking in the GOP-mirror when you use derogatory language, you only embarass your friends in the White House, DoJ, and outside counsel. How's that rendition lawsuit going for the war crimes tribunal?

Anonymous wrote on May 21, 2007 7:07 PM:

Please note: You failed to address Title 50, which remains on the table. Let's reconsider the definition of "any officer" in DOJ, as it relates to Comey's testimony.
----------------
"(1) In general.— The Attorney General shall submit to the Congress a report of any instance in which the Attorney General or any officer of the Department of Justice— "
-------
A. What was the nature of the policy, agreement, and decision within DOJ To not enforce the Constitution:
Note, it is followed by "OR"
-----
(i) from enforcing, applying, or administering any provision of any Federal statute, rule, regulation, program, policy, or other law whose enforcement, application, or administration is within the responsibility of the Attorney General or such officer on the grounds that such provision is unconstitutional; or
- - - -
Let's reconsider the Patriot Act which goes around the Constitution, and allows (illegally, unconstitutionally) the AG to directly appoint, outside the Senate:
"(A) establishes or implements a formal or informal policy to refrain—
(i) from . . . or [OR OR OR]

(ii) within any judicial jurisdiction of or within the United States, from adhering to, enforcing, applying, or complying with, any standing rule of decision (binding upon courts of, or inferior to those of, that jurisdiction) established by a final decision of any court of, or superior to those of, that jurisdiction, respecting the interpretation, construction, or application of the Constitution, any statute, rule, regulation, program, policy, or other law whose enforcement, application, or administration is within the responsibility of the Attorney General or such officer; "

A. Where is Guantanamo; and which US laws apply as long as the US leases the land from Guantanamo? The lease terms stipulate that US shall exercise jurisdiction.

B. Guantanamo is a "jurisdiction of" the US

C. At Guantanamo there was a policy, decision, and rule to NOT, repeat NOT adhere to, enforce, apply, or comply with the US Code prohibiting violations of Geneva. Geneva applies to ABUSE, not the definition of torture.

D. Geneva is a treaty; and Nuremberg is a precedent/standing rule/decision of an international court applicable to the US, and binding on all US court officers to enforce through the US Constitution/oath of office to enforce treaty obligations.

E. It was the responsibility of the AG to ensure that the Conventions were enforced; they were not; therefore this appears to satisfy the element

REVIEW

A case can be made that the AG's decisions to establish policies, rules, and other procedures related to prisoner treatment, refusals to investigate, assent to DOJ OPR not reviewing FISA violations, and use of illegally captured information to abuse prisoners of war does meet Th reporting requirement of the AG to Congress; but the AG has not met those reporting requirements; but he did the opposite: Silenced the DOJ OPR; blocked the IG; did not permit a review of the NSLs, and took no action when he knew or should have known that prisoners were being abused in violation of Geneva, to which he had a legal duty -- as do White House counsel -- to enforce, not explain away.

We have a different view of what the statute means. Fine. That does not mean that legal counsel gets permission to act unprofessionally, nor insult themselves by lowering their public conduct. If you are counsel, I would encourage you to review your attorney standards of conduct.

There is a reasonable difference of view of what the law means; how to review the statute; and whether it does or does not apply. This disagreement does not appear to be one that we can resolve here on TPM, thus we leave it for the court to adjudicate. You have no basis to assert that this is not a legal issue which the courts cannot adjudicate. Whether the AG has or has not complied with this requirement is a secondary issue. Broadly dismissing the concern -- while apparently ignoring "OR" and "shall" -- suggests the questions and issues have been dismissed on the basis of a selective interpretation of the Statute. Fine. You're free to interpret the statute; and the courts are free to review whether your interpretation was reasonable, or whether an attorney did or did not exercise appropriate care when reviewing the legal requirements under the statute. It remains a question of law and attorney standards of conduct whether a reasonable attorney did or did not exercise due diligence and professionalism when they apparently have a hard time understanding "OR" and "shall."
Then again, perhaps you are Reading a different version of the attorney standards of conduct, Geneva Conventions, FISA< and the policies which AG Gonzalez doesn't want anyone to review.

As it stands, it appears as though there is overwhelming evidence that the AG has a legal requirement that he has not met; and that there is ample evidence of specific legal requirements to report to Congress which he has not done. Then again, perhaps you have a different view of what "shall" and "OR" means and are prepared to present your case to the FDC. I suspect you are not serious in your opposition, and view the questions and concerns as invalid not because you want to review the issue, but you are looking for an excuse to ignore the legal requirements of Title 28 and Title 50.

sc: "Degree", did you get your law degree?

Anonymous wrote on May 21, 2007 7:13 PM:

Posted by: irina
Date: May 21, 2007 12:07 PM

Irina,

I would encourage you when you talk to Waxman, to include the "other view" related to the "other interpretatation" of the statute. Please include in your discussion another view as it relates to "OR" and "Shall"; and if you care to, feel free to include the apparent GOP-excuses to say that the statute does not apply.

It would be helpful to go word by words in the statute, an encourage legal counsel for Waxman to carefully review whether anyone in DOJ or the WH EOP has similarly attempted to bully others into believeing that "OR" is not there; or that "shall" is discretioanry; or that the open source information about alleged illegal activity does not meet the statutory requirements.

A plain reading of the statute does not appear to support a "reasonable view" that "OR" means "AND"; nor does a reasonable interpretation of the statute suggest that "if one element of the statute is not met, then the entire statute does not apply." This is a misreading of the definition of "OR".

Again, the point is not to bereate the views of those who appear to have another "view" of the statute; but to show Waxman that the best the adverarial system could do was:

A. Ignore the Title 50 requirements, and not discuss it;

B. Use insulting language;

C. Apparently ignore the "OR" requirements of the statute; and

D. Fail to discussion what pubilc information is known that would appare to support the opposite view that the AG has not complied with the mandatory reporting requirements ["shall"] per the FISA, NSA, rendition, NSLs, DOJ OPR, and other policies that apparently DOJ AG and his deputies have enacted to ignore the Constution, GEneva Conventions, and SUpreme Law.

Thank you for forwarding your comments to Waxman, and I would be encouraged to hear more if you have either favorable or unfavorable responses in re Title 28 and Title 50. Perhaps they too have a different view of what "OR" and "Shall" means, which may or may not match what WH-EOP-GOP outside counsel may wish the world to believe it means.

shipwreckedcrew wrote on May 21, 2007 9:31 PM:

You are so dense. Go read the statute again. It requires a report to Congress when the AG determines that a law passed by Congress cannot be enforced against the public because it is unconstitutional.

It does NOT say he must report when he decides to not enforce the constitution. Reading it that way really taxes an IQ down, and with you it shows.

Here are the operative words from each of the subparagraphs:

(1) The AG shall submit to the Congress a report of any instance [he]... -

(A) establishes or implements a ... policy to refrain -

(i) from enforcing ... any provision of any federal statute ... on the grounds that such provision is unconstitutional; or

(ii) ... from adhering to ... or complying with any standing rule of decision ... established by a final decision of any court ... respecting the interpretation, construction or application of the Constitution, any statute, ..[etc.];

(B) determines -

(i) to contest affirmatively, in any judicial ... or other proceeding, the constitutionality of any provision of any Federal statute, rule, regulation, ... [etc.]; or

(ii) to refrain (on the grounds that the provision is unconstitutional) from defending or asserting, in any judicial ... or other proceeding, the constitutionality of any provision of any Federal statute, rule, ...[etc.], or not to appeal or request review of any judicial ... or other determination adversely affecting the constitutionality of any such provision; or

(C) approves ... of any claim, suit, or other action -

(i) against the US ... for a sum that excceeds ... $2 million ...; or

(ii) by the US ... pursuant to an agreement, consent decree, or other order .....

So, take the balance of your leftwingnutroot hysterics, and your double digit IQ, and get back to your Middle East Studies class.

PLEASE (code word)

Anonymous wrote on May 21, 2007 11:31 PM:

Posted by: shipwreckedcrew
Date: May 21, 2007 09:31 PM \

I can't help you if you can't read the "operative" word in Bii -- [ OR OR OR ]

-----

Taking your words...

(ii) to refrain (on the grounds that the provision is unconstitutional) from defending or asserting, in any judicial ... or other proceeding, the constitutionality of any provision of any Federal statute, rule, ...[etc.], or not to appeal or request review of any judicial ... or other determination adversely affecting the constitutionality of any such provision; or [ OR OR OR ]

(C) approves ... of any claim, suit, or other action -

--------------

You can read it how you want. The way it is working/reading is

A. OR

B. OR

C.

Pick.

------------------

Also, you're

You're dismissing the statutory requirements based on a misreading of your own C&P.

We disagree. Fine. Send this to court to adjudicate.

==============================

Details for WAXMAN and his staff. Congressman, looks like we have a difference of opinion on the reading of the statute.

Let's take a look at the construction of the statute using the "plain meaning rule"

There are three general categories.

A. Establishes; OR
B. Determines; OR
C. Approves.

There is no requirement that if "A" is not satisifed, that nothing else is satisfied. Rather, the basdis for the report can be EITHER A, B, OR C.

============================

(a) Report.—

(1) In general.— The Attorney General shall submit to the Congress a report of any instance in which the Attorney General or any officer of the Department of Justice—

(A) establishes or implements a formal or informal policy to refrain—

(i) from enforcing, applying, or administering any provision of any Federal statute, rule, regulation, program, policy, or other law whose enforcement, application, or administration is within the responsibility of the Attorney General or such officer on the grounds that such provision is unconstitutional; or

(ii) within any judicial jurisdiction of or within the United States, from adhering to, enforcing, applying, or complying with, any standing rule of decision (binding upon courts of, or inferior to those of, that jurisdiction) established by a final decision of any court of, or superior to those of, that jurisdiction, respecting the interpretation, construction, or application of the Constitution, any statute, rule, regulation, program, policy, or other law whose enforcement, application, or administration is within the responsibility of the Attorney General or such officer;

(B) determines—

(i) to contest affirmatively, in any judicial, administrative, or other proceeding, the constitutionality of any provision of any Federal statute, rule, regulation, program, policy, or other law; or

(ii) to refrain (on the grounds that the provision is unconstitutional) from defending or asserting, in any judicial, administrative, or other proceeding, the constitutionality of any provision of any Federal statute, rule, regulation, program, policy, or other law, or not to appeal or request review of any judicial, administrative, or other determination adversely affecting the constitutionality of any such provision; or [ OR OR OR ]

(C) approves (other than in circumstances in which a report is submitted to the Joint Committee on Taxation, pursuant to section 6405 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986) the settlement or compromise (other than in bankruptcy) of any claim, suit, or other action—
(i) against the United States (including any agency or instrumentality thereof) for a sum that exceeds, or is likely to exceed, $2,000,000, excluding prejudgment interest; or
(ii) by the United States (including any agency or instrumentality thereof) pursuant to an agreement, consent decree, or order (or pursuant to any modification of an agreement, consent decree, or order) that provides injunctive or other nonmonetary relief that exceeds, or is likely to exceed, 3 years in duration: Provided, That for purposes of this clause, the term “injunctive or other nonmonetary relief” shall not be understood to include the following, where the same are a matter of public record—
(I) debarments, suspensions, or other exclusions from Government contracts or grants;
(II) mere reporting requirements or agreements (including sanctions for failure to report);
(III) requirements or agreements merely to comply with statutes or regulations;
(IV) requirements or agreements to surrender professional licenses or to cease the practice of professions, occupations, or industries;
(V) any criminal sentence or any requirements or agreements to perform community service, to serve probation, or to participate in supervised release from detention, confinement, or prison; or
(VI) agreements to cooperate with the government in investigations or prosecutions (whether or not the agreement is a matter of public record).

=====================================

Let's take a look at a specific set of criteria that would satisfy -- based on public information -- the elements in (b) "Determining"

Refraining to DEFEND or ASSERT in ANY judicial proceeding

(ii) to refrain (on the grounds that the provision is unconstitutional) from defending or asserting, in any judicial, administrative, or other proceeding, the constitutionality of any provision of any Federal statute, rule, regulation, program, policy, or other law, or not to appeal or request review of any judicial, administrative, or other determination adversely affecting the constitutionality of any such provision; or

============================

Recall the claims of "unconstitutional" in re issues of signing statements on "intruding" on Presidential power. Surely, when the PResident and AG assert in a signing statement that the issue is not Constitutional, as is apparently the claim that the FISA Court "cannot" constitutionally review the President's "illegal NSA domestic warrantless surveillance program" -- but they refuse to assert that claim in writing, how does the AG explain his REFUSAL to assert that claim in COURT, but not provide IN WRITING an assertion?

No answer.

OR, the other possibilty is that the legal counsel working in the White House do not understand the word "OR" or how to read statutes.

Eighball says: "Alleged war criminals connected with EOP have a major problem on their hands when they pretend the statutes are one thing, but cannot make a clear and convincing case under the plan language rule."

You're free to keep talking about the language; you're welcome to argue all day long. I would hope Waxman might incorporate your valid concerns in his opening remarks, and we have a civil discussion before court on the issue.

"What is the maning of OR"?

"What did the Framers intend when they said, "OR" in the Bill of Rights?

"OR" after (B) means either A, OR B, or C. not another way that may include A AND (B oR C). WHere there is no "AND" after A, the language does not include "AND", but falls back to the word after (B), "OR".

==================================

Now that we've beat the langauge to death, let's consider an instance when the AG DID REFUSE to bring the claim to FISA court on the "Unconstitutionality" [words of the DOJ STaff after the illegal NSA programs were dislosed] of the FISA Court.

1. Did the AG not establish a policy to REFRAIN from enforcing the FISA requirements on the RETROACTIVELY CREATED-Argument that the FISA rules were an UNCONSTITUTIONAL intrusion on to Presidential power? Eightball says: "Appears so, yet the DOJ Staff didn't forward this to Congress." OOps. Strike one.

2. DId the AG not have a policy of blocking DOJ OPR from preventing a review of the AG's assertion that the FISA Court was unconstitutioanl, and should be ignored? Yes.

3. Did the AG not esablish a policy to violate the BIll of Rights, but argue that the oversight of Congress on the NSLs UNCONSTITUTIONALLY intruded on the President during wartime; but the AG asserted in Feb 2006 that the policy was not subject to Congressional review in that it was "classified"; yet we find out that the policy was illegal, and it was UNLAWFULLY classified in violation of ORCON.

========================
(1) In general.— The Attorney General shall submit to the Congress a report of any instance in which the Attorney General or any officer of the Department of Justice—
(A) establishes or implements a formal or informal policy to refrain—
(i) from enforcing, applying, or administering any provision of any Federal statute, rule, regulation, program, policy, or other law whose enforcement, application, or administration is within the responsibility of the Attorney General or such officer on the grounds that such provision is unconstitutional; or

=================================

At this point, we've only touched the surface. Put aside our disagreement on whether the operative words are your version or my version; and forget the argument that someone can't read.

Let's consider something else: How mamy other "classified" Programs [that may actually be illegally classified because they are unlawful] were asserted to Congress -- in private -- that the Congress has "no power" to regualte the President's conduct because the President's "war time" powers cannot CONSTITUTIONALLY be constrained?

Again, the issue isn't that we agree or disagree on the definition of OR, Shall, or Constitutional, but the opposite: How many cases has the AG REFUSSED to assert "this is unconstitutional" WHILE he knew he had a policy that refused to comply with the statute; and had no plans to fully defend or assert that legal argument [as called forth in the stastute]?

Again, we have no idea how many times the AG has REFUSED to assert the CONSTITUTIONALITY or UNCONSTITUTALITY of a given policy in any court, because there have been SECRET proceedings; and we do not know how many others activiites that SHOULD have been reported [as they comply or do not comply with this statute] because the investigation has not begun.

It appears you're arguing that the statute does not apply; yet, the other view is that the statue applies, and it is the burden of the AG to submit to a review of ALL activities to review whether he has or has not fully complied with his notification requirements in re issues of notification on CONstitutional or unconstitutioanl claims.

You have a valid point: We disagree; the problem is you're not addressing the other issue: Title 50. I can't help you argue something over Title 50, regardless your perceived view that the AG has fully complied with Title 28. Your argument isn't working. You appear to be arguing from ignorance -- that there is or is not any evidence about CONSTITUTIONAL claims -- yet, the instances of when the AG has or has not fully cmplied with the requirements has not been fully examined.

Maybe the AG has fully complied; then again, until we review the work flows, we're not going to have an answer other than, "This statute does not apply." That doesn't work as an argument; nor as a credible basis to shut down DOJ OPR or DOJ IG or the House/Senate Judiciary or Government Reform Committee to ask whether AG has or has not fully complied with this statute. If you had a valid argument, I'd be willing to listen.

Try again. You might be right. Convince me. Remember, if you can't convince me "this doesn't apply" how are you going to convince Waxman or the rest of the American public who are [in your words] alot smarter than I am?

If I am an idiot, then it won't take much to convince me that you are correct. I think you can do it. But I also think that the reason you're having trouble making the argument is that you're asserting -- apparently from a conclusion that the statute does not apply -- on the basis of not having reviewed when AG might have violated the requirement, yet the information has not been reviewed, discussed, or examined.

Walk me through it, and pretend that I'm your student, 1L.

Anonymous wrote on May 22, 2007 12:29 AM:

Posted by: shipwreckedcrew
Date: May 21, 2007 09:31 PM

You made some intersting points. Thank you for taking the time to share your views. It appears your arguments are invalid. The more we dig into FISA and the secret FISA court reviews, it does appear as though the AG has not fully complied with the TItle 28 requirements. Indeed, this is only a cursory review of what little the AG has discussed; and we reserve the right to expand this conclusion as it might relate to other illegal activity which the AG has similarly not fully complied in his title 28 reporting requirement to Congress.

Although I disagree, you well stated, "It requires a report to Congress when the AG determines that a law passed by Congress cannot be enforced against the public because it is unconstitutional." Your reading of the statute is implying words are there which are not in the statute. That is a matter of law, not for you to assert, especially when the statute language is not consistent with your assertion.

Further, I do not see the words, "against the public" in the statute. Rather, this is what I see: Consider how 530D was crafted/organized -- it's not within the "public enforcement" but relates to the government-operations area. Take a look:
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/uscode28/usc_sup_01_28_10_II_20_31.html

Also consider this separate report that relates:
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/uscode28/usc_sec_28_00000529----000-.html

The point is that the above reports relate to government operations, not necessarily against the "public" as in JohnQPublic. So I disagree with your assertion that the "refusal" of the AG to enforce is only related to a refusal to enforce the law against the public. It could be a refusal to enforce the law against the government officials, contractors, and DoJ staff personnel who have signed off and are fully implementing an illegal program: rendition, DOJ OPR blocking, FISA violations, illegal war crimes, or other things.

We leave it for another day for the AG to show he has or has not fully asserted a claim of "unconstitutional" as they related to the Geneva Conventions covering treatment of prisoners; or how data may be captured through NSA intermediaries as they relate to domestic surveillance of lawful activity; or how that illegally captured data has or has not been used to impermissibly impose unlawful abuse on prisoners, American citizens, or other people around the globe in violation of the laws of war.

==================

Consider also the FISA court and the decision of the FISA court to eject FBI agents because of their lying. Was it not the assertion -- not made by AG Gonzalez before the FISA court as required -- that the FISA statute impersmissibly intrudes on the President's power? Surely, Title 28 as you well commented would apply and have some sort of "relationship" to this apparent assertion or non-assertion of Constitutionality, depending on the weather, winds, and inclination of the President to assent to his oath of office.
Again, the issue isn't what the AG said; but his assertion in public before the Senate that he had a legal conclusion about "other things" that he cannot discuss openly. This fatally opens the can of worms for the AG: How many of these arguments relate to the assertion that the FISA statute would not be enforced because it was not Constitutional? We don't know, because the FISA-NSA briefings have been "oooh, big secrets"; when, in fact, they were classified "secret" to prevent public discussion of the illegalities, which JROC asserted could be complied with with existing technology.

============================

Let's reconsider (A) again:

How many times did the AG, in secret-Private with the NSA contractors ESTABLISH a formal POLICY to refrain from applying the FISA statute -- as it relates to compelling a warrant before contractors provide data to the government -- on the grounds that the "enforcement" of that requirement impermissibly intruded on the President's power and UNCONSTITUTIONALLY violated Article II;

OR

How many times has he done the opposite: Only when caught with the FISA violations, did he BELATEDLY argue -- not concurrently as required -- that the FISA statute was unconstitutional; but he did not provide that argument AS REQUIRED under Title 28 to the FISA COURT?

Again, we don't know because the FISA Court proceedings are secret.
But let's put the above aside. We're apparently being asked -- without reviewing any illegal activity that may have been unlawfully classified and hidden -- that the AG has NEVER refused to assert a claim that the FISA statute was UNCONSTITUTIONAL. It is a stunning assertino to make, especially given so much that hasn't been reviewed on the dubious claim that the actdivity is "classified," without proving that the activity was lawfully classified. [Perhaps Reynolds has something to say about that.]

How do we conclude that the AG fully did comply with the statute, yet he refuses to permit his assertions and legal arguments to get reviewed on the grounds that they're "national security" related?

How many "informal" -- read, "not yet disclosed" -- programs and policies does the AG have that says he will not enforce the law; or that he will not pursue any claim on the grounds that it is UNCONSTITUTIONAL, but he has not -- as required -- provided that determination to Congress for their review? Again, the AG refuses to respond to subpoenas; and the AG refuses to work with Congress to provide the information; and the WH and EOP refuse to permit fully access to all witnesses.

Wow, so we agree that the WH hasn't cooperated, and there is something that we don't know; but we're asked to believe that the AG has "fully complied" with requirements that the WH won't let us examine. Yet, Comey specially stated that there were illegal activities; yet, we have nothing from AG Gonzalez explaining why he refused to provide this "claim of unconstitutionality" to the FISA Court or Congress; but we have the opposite: The vague claim that "we can't talk about it" and "it's secret." Gee, Comey likes to talk about it, but doesn't have a problem concluding that something was illegal; surely, the AG at some point made a policy, rule, or argued at some sort of DOJ OPR investigation -- as it relates to the US Attorney firings -- that someone should be fired because they weren't doing their job; but the AG REFUSED -- as required -- to assert his real [bogus] argument that the action was based on a nebulous claim of "unconstitutional" intrusion into the President's sole Executive power.

Nope, I've carefully reviewed your argument, and it's not working. But let's try it another way. Let's suppose you're right: The statute does not apply, and there is no evidence. Fine, then let's keep in on the table -- How many programs do DOJ Staff counsel know about that would require a reporting under this statute, but were not correctly reported because the lazy, arrogant, and stupid White House counsel had already agreed that the "risky approach" needed to be taken, regardless their illegality; yet, rather than pursue the claim -- as required -- in court or during a proceeding t to fire the US Attorneys, the AG refused to make the "real" argument that the issue was "unconstitutional" but he CHANGED the issue to "Oh, they're really weak on immigration."

Using the public DOJ E-mails, it does appear that the FISA arguments are implicitly related to a [bogus] argument that they were "unconstitutional," but the AG refused to make this argument AS REQUIRED.

========================

(A) establishes or implements a formal or informal policy to refrain—
(i) from enforcing, applying, or administering any provision of any Federal statute, rule, regulation, program, policy, or other law whose enforcement, application, or administration is within the responsibility of the Attorney General or such officer on the grounds that such provision is unconstitutional; or
======================================

But forget all that. Consider what Comey said: That there was illegal activity. Simple question: Who established the policy to "refrain" from enforcing the FISA statute and warrant requirements on the grounds that it was "unconstitutional", but that determination was not provided to Congress as required?

-----------------------
establishes or implements a formal or informal policy to refrain—
(i) from enforcing, applying, or administering any provision of any Federal statute, rule, regulation, program, policy, or other law whose enforcement, application, or administration is within the responsibility of the Attorney General or such officer on the grounds that such provision is unconstitutional
------------------------------------

How many rules has the AG refused to enforce -- as they relate to regulating FBI agents in processing warrants; or for that matter in how the US Attorneys are fired/hired in the Patriot Act -- but an absurd assertion exists that the provision in the Bill of Rights/Constitution -- the warrant requirement, as codified under FISA -- is "unconstitutional" intrusion on the President's power?
That's kind of puzzling: Using your argument and your construction, we've backed AG into a no-win situation on the FISA requirements and notifications to Congress. Either

A. the AG is asserting this in his justification for not complying with FISA, and he's violating the Constitution; OR

B. he's knowingly asserting the FISA requirements are unconstitutional, but refusing to assert that arguing in the FISA court as required under Title 28.

======================
Questions in light of our discussion of TItle 28 reporting requirements to Congress:

A. When did AG Gonzalez "determine" that he would coonclude the FISA requirements were unconstitutional?

B. When did the AG assign a work flow to DOJ Staff counsel to discuss the unconstitutionality of the FISA as it relates to Presidential power?

C. When did the AG decide by memorandum that he would asserting in the FISA court that the FISA requirements were or were not constitutional?

D. What is the relationship between the NYT discussion on the illegal NSA surveillance; the timing of the AG work flows on "constitutionality" of FISA; and the statements AG and FBI agents made to the FISA court?

E. When did the AG work flows show that the AG was not going to assert in the FISA court that the FISA requirements were or were not Constitutional?

F. When did the AG determine that he would "refrain" from challenging legal challenges to the Patriot Act which -- illegally -- permitted direct appointment of US Attorneys by the AG?

G. Is it not a reasonable argument to conclude that the AG decision to "not comply with a subpoena" in re US Attorneys -- for the purposes of Title 28 -- is a decision to refrain from asserting the Constitutionality of the Patriot Act requirements, which are -- in fact -- unconstitutional?

H. Which Members of Congress should have been giving these conclusions in re FISA, rendition, warrantless surveillance, and blocking of DOJ OPR by the AG?

I. Despite the apparent difference of view of what Title 28 means, could we not look at (D) and review what the "senate legal counsel" and the "GC of the House" have commented on in re this Title 28 reporting requirement by the AG; where's their review of this report?

J. After AG Gonzalez said he would not assert in any court the constitutionality of the decision to ignore FISA, was this report provided within 30 days as required?

K. What evidence does the AG have that the report required permitted the House and Senate to timely review the AG decision in re FISA; and the AG decision to not assert the Constitutionality/unconstitutionality of the FISA requirements before the FISA court when the President first started the illegal surveillance?

L. Where is the memorandum related to the approvals?

M. As required under (2) where is the fully "detailed" statement the AG has in re the FISA decisions, and the AG decision to not raise the issue of Constitutionality with the FISA court?

N. Given the requirements under (2)(A) not to disclose "improper" disclosure of (lawfully) classified information, what evidence does the AG, EOP, or outside WH counsel have that the discussion of the FISA decisions -- to not assert a claim of Constitutionality/unconstitutionality -- would or would not disclose classified information; or was that information illegally classified?

O. Regardless whether the report has or has not been filed, what review did Congress make of any AG reports related to Title 28; and has the AG fully complied with the Title 28 requirements in (2)(A) to ask questions about the omitted details?

P. For purposes of (e), which "unclassified Executive order" has the AG appropriately or inappropriately provided details, documentation, and demonstrated compliance with Title 28?

Anonymous wrote on May 22, 2007 1:04 AM:

Congressman Waxman and Irina,

Thank you for considering my views on Title 28. You have been gracious enough to review these comments, especially given your busy schedule with your many oversight responsibiltes above and beyond the issue at hand; and the many other comments on TPM. I appreciate your time and attention to this issue.

Based solely on the arguments for and against the issues of Title 28 -- as presented above -- I'm struck by the contrast. One poster is using reason and arguments -- that may or may not be valid; while a second poster is using personal attacks and emotional language. Reasonable qustions deserve answers; unreasonable attacks are not arguments, but something else, TBD.

Putting aside the contrasting argument styles, I'm struck that apparently the only foundation for one of the posters to comment is to engage in less than civil/more emotional language; but assert the problem is "someone else." This hardly discusses the issue, or focuses attention on the core questions and issues raised about AG compliance with Title 28.

Once the "defense" of the "Title 28 does not apply"-argument are examined, it doesn't appear as though there is much there to justify to the Committee on Govt Reform "to do nothing." Rather, we reach the opposite conclusions:

A. The arguments based on reason are asking valid questions which are not getting credible answers;

B. The scope of the discussion is narrowly focusing on only Title 28, but ignoring the "obvious" problems with Title 50, suggesting that the Title 50 issues are also relevant and need to be incorporated into the AG review;

C. The scope of the technical language of the Statute is interesting, but is not convincing;

D. The construction and argument about what the statute means, suggests, or actually says to argue that there is no problem -- is not consistent with a plain reading of a statute that suggests there is an area warranting review;

E. The basis to dismiss a concern, line of questions, and inquiry is not based on a well thought discussion, but the opposite: Arguments which fail to credibly justify public policy, oversight, or a claim that reason and logic are guiding the American government and AG conduct;

F. We've heard no valid argument to justify ignoring the questions above; or to accept -- on faith alone, without review -- that there is no problem;

G. The basis for the arguments seem strangely familiar to the Addington-Gonzalez-Berenson-Bybee-Yoo approach of asserting a conclusion, saying things do not apply, and ignoring contrary opinions. This is an event-outcome driven discussion, not linked with a give and take that might be expected of a discussion to discuss whether something is or is not true; or whether there is or is not a valid concern.

H. One of the posters tends to have longer comments and well thought out opinions -- that may be right or wrong; but the other poster has shorter comments that fail to address the substantive questions, issues, and comments raised

I. With time, more arguments suggesting there is a problem with AG compliance with Title 28 tend to outweigh what would be expected to be the opposite and more compelling arguments if the Title 28 requirements were not applicable; or there was a valid basis to not review or be concerned about the Title 28-AG compliance issues in re reports to Congress on these statutory requirements.

J. It is not convincing -- based on the arguments presented -- that there is no issue; or that there is no problem; rather, the weight of the arguments suggest there are valid questions which are linked with statutory requirements; and that a plain reading of the statute tends to suggest that some have an interest to arrive at conclusions which defy simple reason and English;

K. The above arguments, discussion, and give and take, appear to be things that EOP, DOJ, and WH Counsel are not well able to discuss; and their opinions about the statutory language do not appear to be fleshed out, convincing, or something that warrants reliance. Rather, if we assume that the views were by marginally informed people, even a plain reading of the arguments and discussion points suggests that there are valid concerns which even the WH, EOP, DOJ, and other legal counsel have not been able to satisfactorily address. This late in the game, one would expect some convincing legal arguments to have arrived to dismiss the concerns with Title 28; but we have the opposite: The arguments suggesting that there is no problem are less convincing, while the issues and questions and concerns about Title 28 tend to grow longer, more focused, and warrant review.

I would encourage you to consider inviting the opposing views on Title 28 to your committee and let the Committee openly discuss their views and reactions to the lines of evidence, reasoning, and discussion points from both sides of the argument.

Thank you for considering this discussion as you expand your inquiry into alleged AG violations of public policy, statute, and the laws of war.

Very respectfully,

Anonymous wrote on May 22, 2007 2:14 AM:

COMMENTARY ON THE APPARENT INCORRECT, NARROW APPLICATION OF TITLE 28

Comey's statements show the AG has had a policy of violating the law, which the AG refused to report -- as required in writing -- to Congress per Title 28. Title 28 applies to rules, regulations, procedures, and statutory requirements.

It is not correct to suggest the Title 28 requirements on the AG only apply to Constitutional issues. Let's consider the language. Another way of looking at this: Delete (A)(ii) [for the moment], and you will see there is no specific reference to "Constitutionality" in the remaining text of (A).

There is no "and" in the list, meaning that the "OR"-statements can be individually removed, and still show that the AG has violated the requirement. Once the AG has violated either A, B, OR C, he's got a Title 28 reporting problem. Here's the rewording:

======================
(a) Report.—
(1) In general.— The Attorney General shall submit to the Congress a report of any instance in which the Attorney General or any officer of the Department of Justice—
(A) establishes or implements a formal or informal policy to refrain—

[Removing (i) and OR: The legal requirement is not just with the Constitutionality, but broader statutes, rules, and other things, as was originally raised. The key is whether you want to review/interpret "OR" as something that is one-of-many requirements; or a single requirement that may or may not be violated, but the AG may have violated the whole statute by only violating one section of A(ii)]

[Continuing]

(ii) within any judicial jurisdiction of or within the United States, from adhering to, enforcing, applying, or complying with, any standing rule of decision (binding upon courts of, or inferior to those of, that jurisdiction) established by a final decision of any court of, or superior to those of, that jurisdiction, respecting the interpretation, construction, or application of the Constitution, any statute, rule, regulation, program, policy, or other law whose enforcement, application, or administration is within the responsibility of the Attorney General or such officer

==========================

Note: The AG might still violate the above provision, and constitute a violation of Title 28; yet there would be no narrow focus or exclusive mention of "Constitutionality" in the discussion/indictment per (A)(ii). Rather there are other issues other than the Constitution: Rules, laws, and legal requirements/procedures which may not be acts of Congress, but DOJ internal rules and guidelines such as DOJ OPR investigation procedures. The President in admitting that DOJ OPR was shut down, and by implication, the DOJ AG decision not to enforce the DOJ OPR would constitute a Title 28 violation if the AG did not, as required, report the decision to Congress not to enforce this legal requirement.

Also, "rule, regulation, program, policy" does not necessarily mean that the AG is responsible only for reporting Constitutional issues; rather, it could be NSA internal procedures and Administrative requirements as it relates to use of non-official instant messaging systems to communicate classified NSA data with civilian contractors to bypass Congressional subpoenas.

=============================

Let's break it down:

1. Guantanamo per Hamdan and Rasul is under the US jurisdiction: "within any judicial jurisdiction of or within the United States,"

2. This establishes a general relationship between the AG and the law -- he has a duty to enforce it, ensure that it is applied, and that people are following it; as was not done in re FISA, rendition, prisoner abuse: ["from adhering to, enforcing, applying, or complying with,"]

3. This could be any rule of decision from Nuremberg, war crimes tribunal, FISA court, or the other precedents in re Watergate, obstruction, which the AG appears to have ignored, and not enforced as Title 28 requires a report: ["any standing rule of decision (binding upon courts of, or inferior to those of, that jurisdiction)"]

4. Any court could be Nuremberg, or the Hamdan precedent conclusion prisoners of war at Guantanamo shall have their Geneva protections enforced, which the AG appears to have ignored given the DOJ knowledge of the abuse, but refusal to prosecute the President and WH counsel for issuing the Bybee Memorandum, which J. Dean calls illegal: ["established by a final decision of any court of, or superior to those of, that jurisdiction,"]

5. This broadly applies to rules, statutes, and not just the narrow issue of the "Constitution": ["respecting the interpretation, construction, or application of the Constitution, any statute, rule, regulation, program, policy, or other law whose enforcement, application, or administration is within the responsibility of the Attorney General or such officer"]

It appears as if the AG is aware of Presidential decisions to NOT enforce ANY Statute -- regardless their issue of Constitutionality or Unconstitutionality -- the AG has to provide a report indicating that he will not enforce that statute.
Obviously, there are different views on whether this interpretation of the plain language is correct. The point is that a plain reading does not well fit with the other views that the legal requirements and reporting are isolated only to public enforcement/non-enforcement of Constitutional issues.

SUMMATION

AG reporting liability to Congress attaches broadly to rules, regulations, procedures, and policies, not just the Constitution. There's been a sweeping asserting that someone's "got it wrong," but a careful reading of the language does not support this view, but broadens the AG liability to more than Constitutional issues, to many other statutes, rules, procedures, and other things the AG is supposed to enforce, not to mention the DOJ OPR investigation requirements, and FBI MAOP rules and regulations governing FBI inappropriate disclosures to GOP and the White House on classified US Attorney investigations.

By attempting narrowly defining the statute as "only" related to Constitutional issues, GOP appears to have fatally argued against itself, and called into question the many other statutes, rules, and guidelines above and beyond FISA, rendition, NSLs, unlawful warfare; and goes directly into the decision of the AG to ignore the US Attorney Manual, and apparently obstruct FBI investigations in re Plame and prisoner abuse in re Geneva.

In short, the arguments suggesting there is no problem with AG Title 28 requirements are frivolous; and fail to address the larger legal issues related to war crimes, and other grave breaches of the Supreme Law. The AG's "best defence" is to call those asking these questions a Dufus. Somehow, that "dufus defense" didn't work at Nuremberg where legal counsel were adjudicated with war crimes and lawfully executed for failing to assert their obligations under Geneva. Not looking good for formerly assigned White House counsel, DOJ staff, and the GOP legal counsel in re war crimes, FISA violations, and other illegal conduct which they are presumed innocent until proven guilty. Let's see what the Grand Jury says.

RECOMMENDATION: Please forward the above to the US Attorneys for review and where appropriate review by a Federal Grand Jury. Please review the GOP staff counsel who have publicly commented on issues of privilege, NSA, AT&T, and secrecy; and determine to what extent DoJ Staff counsel have coordinated with outside counsel to provide misleading legal information to the public for purposes of dissuading enforcement of FISA< Geneva, and laws of war against the AG, DoJ Staff counsel, the President, outside counsel, EOP, and the formerly assigned White House counsel.

You may presume the investigation by the public -- outside the Grand Jury -- is continuing; and that the subpoenas issued to dissuade public discussion of the alleged complicity of formerly outside counsel have been ineffectual. War crimes can be investigated worldwide, without any statute of limitation. Any effort to dissuade the public from publicly discussing these concerns through the issuance of NSLs and subpoenas with threat of public disclosure of identities may be construed to be harassment and an effort to stifle lawful public enquiry into alleged war crimes by formerly and currently assigned counsel to the President, EOP, DoJ, and outside counsel. It remains up tot he Grand Jury to decide whether the public discussion of these legal issues were efforts to stifle, harass, and dissuade anyone from enforcing their oath of office, Constitution, or Geneva requirements. You are advised to seek counsel. Efforts to claim "harassment" for commenting on these issues of public policy and alleged war crimes are frivolous.

Once legal counsel work for the President and openly comment on issues of rendition, their public comments make them a public figure and they may be challenged when the publicly issue contradictory statements; or assert that they cannot comment on something that they've fatally chosen to continue discussing. One your law firms have been linked with public discussions, or you have openly disclosed a connection with the legal parties involved, that information is not protected; and you may not guarantee to any of your clients that your communications with your clients are confidential so long as you fail to protect your communications and discussions.

There is no statute of limitations for alleged war crimes. You are presumed innocent until proven guilty. Legal counsel were adjudicated with war crimes for making frivolous arguments to not have asserted the Geneva Conventions; or in refusing to enforce the law through impeachment against civilian leaders, as is the case above in re Title 28 and AG Gonzalez. It remains to be adjudicated to what extent legal counsel in the US has agreed to not enforce the laws against the President, AG, and others in contravention with the Geneva Conventions and Oath of Office/Attorney Standards of Conduct.

SUGGESTED GRAND JURY LINES OF INQUIRY IN RE CURRENT/FORMER WH/DOJ LEGAL COUNSEL

A. How many subpoenas has legal counsel connected with the WH, DOJ, EOP, or outside counsel issued to identify people publicly discussing concerns with legal counsel's alleged complicity with war crimes?

B. To what extent have legal counsel inappropriately sought to stile discussion of alleged war crimes by American legal counsel using subpoenas, threats of disclosure of identities?

C. To what extent have NSA contractors working with the GOP and DOJ Staff counsel attempted to issue NSLs and other warrants to target for investigation and search people attempting to discuss issues of legal counsel complicity with war crimes?

D. How many formerly and currently assigned WH/DOJ Staff counsel -- after making frivolous arguments to justify illegal activity, illusory immunity, or baseless privilege -- have gotten their egos crushed when their comments were publicly shown to be absurd; and their only option was to claim "woe is me" despite their free decision to become a public figure and make comments that are wholly inconsistent with Comey's assertions that there was known-alleged illegal activity inside DOJ which White House counsel, EOP, and outside counsel knew or should have known was occurring in re FISA, AT&T, and rendition, and the use of that illegally captured information to abuse prisoners in violation of the laws of war?

Anonymous wrote on May 22, 2007 1:11 PM:

THERE IS NO LEGAL PRECEDENT IN ANY DISTRICT COURT SUGGESTING THAT THE TITLE 28 STATUTE HAS BEEN TESTED

There is no legal basis to assert that the Title 28 interpretations above is invalid. If you would like to assert that the Statute may "not" be construed adversely to the AG/POTUS interests, freel free to cite your case law. Silence.

But why stop there? The problem for anyone to assert that the above discussion is "incorrect" fails to consider a small problem: The language has not been reviewed in any district court; not is the language of the statute subject to a specific ruling.

Translation: This is ripe for adjudication to determine what the language in the statute means. We have on the table evidence the AG has not complied with the requirements in Title 28; and an opposing view -- without having done any review of the AG secret/illegal activities -- to assert that the statute [a] does not apply; [b] should be narrowly construed; or [c] is not relevant.

That is not a legal argument, but denial. Same problem this President has with FISA, Geneva, rendition, prisoner abuse.

Addington's problem is that he's asserted that the statutes do not apply; or that they "intrude" upon the President's power -- implicitly arguing that they are not constitutional; yet in so arguing, Addington and Gonzalez have also implicitly argued they are [a] not going to comply with the statute; [b] have established a policy that will not enforce a statute on the grounds of constitutionality; [c] have some sort of internal memorandum, or work flow decision linked with that decision not to enforce the law nor assert a claim of "unconstitutionality"; yet [d] have no public document showing that they have communicated this conclusion -- as required under Title 28 -- to the Congress.

Addington -- as he did with the Iran-Contra minority report -- cannot pick and choose from the statute; and selectively pretend that some portions of the statute apply; but then turn around and suggest that the implications of that selective reading -- attached to a second and third causes of actions under different legal requirements -- are also not subject to judicial review.

The error this Administration has is that they've attempted t to resolve problems illegally; have taken the first steps by selectively ignoring the laws and pretending that legal counsel has a "solid" legal argument; but has ignored the other side of the coin: When those legal arguments are construed absurdly on the basis that they are not constitution, BUT the AG refuses to assert that claim in court; or he has asserted in a private memorandum with contractors that the statute is not constitutional, YET the AG has not reported in writing his decision to do this as required under Title 28, the AG has locked himself into a legal box:

1. He's asserted a non-sense argument to justify ignoring the law;

2. He's ignored the statute;

3. He's asserted that a non-sense "exception" to a statute is "not constitutional"; yet

4. He's ignore the legal requirement -- attached with that supposed claim of "unconstitutionality" -- to so report that conclusion in writing to Congress.

The issue isn't what the facts, truth, or what is really going on: the issue is whether the AG will accept: By making a non-sense argument to enable war crimes, prisoner abuse, FISA violations, and other illegal activity as WH Counsel, he's failed to credibly cover all the legal bases. One of those requirements is to report his decision -- as we take on face value -- that FISA, Geneva, and other statutes "intruding" on the President's power was "unconstitutional," yet there is no documentation that AG Gonzalez can provide to Congress showing [a] hes complied with the Title 28 reporting requirements; or [b] the asserted claim of "unconstitutionally" was seriously considered form the outset.

Given the AG's decision not to comply with Title 28, it appears more likely that the claim of "unconstitutionality" of the FISA, Geneva, prisoner treatment, and NSA surveillance standards was RETROACTIVELY asserted to be "unconstitutional", but not a bonafide legal argument, which counsel in the White House knew, or should have known was dubious.

Going further, it remains a matter of evidence to what extent currently assigned WH counsel, DOJ staff, EOP personnel, and outside counsel know that the legal arguments provided to the FISA court were not bonafide; but that they were retroactively devised to create the illusion of 'secrecy" on something that was not bonafidely classified; but the opposite: A decision by the president, WH Counsel, DOJ Staff, NSA commanders, and DOD officials in conjunction with the FBI and enabling Congressional Staff counsel to ignore the legal issues, not hold the President and AG to the Title 28 and Title 50 requirements, but then retroactively pretend that the asserted claim of "unconstitutionality" was contemporaneous with the original decisions in 2001.

No, had the decisions related to "unconstitutionality" of FISA, NSA surveillance, rendition oversight, and prisoner abuse reviews been bonafide, then the President and AG would have complied with the Title 28 and Title 50 requirements and asserted such a finding in writing as required under the statute. We have no evidence that Congress has discussed, reviewed, or examined any claim by the AG or President that the supposed "unconstitutional" aspects of FISA, rendition oversight, prisoner abuse monitoring, or the NSA surveillance was a real legal arguing going forward. Rather, the evidence -- and lack of documentation -- points to the adverse inference:

A. There was no required reporting of a decision not to comply with the legal requirements, as required under Title 28 and Title 50;

B. Legal counsel did remain complicity with unlawful warfare, prisoner abuse, illegal kidnapping, and unlawful NSA surveillance;

C. Counsel attached to the GOP, WH, EOP, outside counsel, DOJ staff knew, or should have known, based on a plain reading of Title 28 that the AG had a requirement to report the decision not to enforce the law as it relates to FISA, warrants, NSA surveillance, kidnapping, Geneva, prisoner treatment; but they were allegedly reckless in not reporting their conclusions/concerns about this illegal activity -- as required -- to the DC Disciplinary Board and DOJ OPR and US Attorney and Congress and respective IG as required under their attorney standards of conduct.

The White House counsel, DOJ Staff, outside counsel, and EOP personnel do not have an "attorney client" relationship with the President. They work first for the American public. Their duty is to work for the public to ensure the President lawfully conducts his business. This legal community has turned this Nation on its head and put loyalty to the President's illegal decisions -- as evidenced by Comey's damning testimony -- before their legal obligations to the DC Bar, DOJ OPR, Constitution, and Geneva Conventions.

History cannot be changed. What can be changed is whether the legal community connected with the GOP and DNC awaken and realize they have a major legal problem on their hands. The AG, President, legal counsel, EOP, WH Staff, and outside counsel have engaged in a course of conduct that defies statute, international law; and they have asserted that the divisions were acceptable because the standards were "unconstitutional"; yet they can point to nothing that would show that this assertion was -- as required -- part of the original Title 28 claims in writing to Congress. They do not exist.

Going further, once it was known within Congress that the AG and President chose not to comply with the Law; and that they had not provided the required notification to Congress that hey were not going to enforce the law, Members of Congress also had a duty to follow-up on the Title 28 and Title 50 requirements, and ask the simple question: "Mr. President and Mr. attorney general: Where are the required notifications to us related to this apparent claims that FISA, Geneva, NSA oversight, and prisoner treatment reviews is "unconstitutional"? Again, we have nothing.

The reasonable conclusions are as follows:
A. The "best" legal defense the WH, President, EOP, AG, outside counsel, DOJ Staff, and GOP have is to use non-sense reconstructions of the statute which have no basis in law and are not linked to any precedent;

B. The same cut and paste approach to the Iran-Contra affair which Addington used is alive well in the second phase of the AG's reckless approach to the Constitution: That of selectively cutting and pasting not at just the caselaw, but the Constitution, Geneva, and fundamental laws themselves.

The world well sees the AG, President, White House counsel, GOP leadership, and outside counsel are selectively defying logic. The law is not a mystery. It is based on simple principles of reason. When the President and AG defy reason and selectively cut and paste as Addington and the AG have done, they are also sending a clear signal to the world: "We will selectively use and not use reason to conduct oversight, conduct warfare, and ensure that we are or are not fully conducting our affairs consistent with all international legal obligations."
The results in Afghanistan and Iraq are telling: The US, despite being the "big power" on the block, appears incapable of moving forces -- as we saw in Katrina -- to stabilize the country, provide assistance, and what eh world that the American model marginally performs better than the Taliban or Russians. The US missed a grand opportunity to show case what supposedly America is all about: The "big story" of what the US did after WWII in Europe.

The world must decide whether it is going to continue to listen to this non-sense; or call this President and AG on their bluff. The President does not have enough combat forces to defend a small village in Afghanistan; he has to take troops from the Air Force to support ground personnel in Iraq. Bluntly, the US -- as Hitler and Napoleon were in Russia; and Japan did in the Pacific during WWII -- has overextend itself, is on the wrong side of the law, and is on an unsustainable trajectory.

There are two broad approaches to dealing with issues: one is the law; the second -- and not advocated -- the use of combat forces. The US is well communicating -- through the defiance of reason and logic in re Title 28 and other treaty obligations -- that it will not assent to the law. Fine. The only option other powers have -- as the US did in WWII against Japan and Germany -- is to use combat forces to compel the US leadership to awaken to reality, comply with the law, and conduct prudent governance.

The issue before us is a problem not for the Constitution, not for the public, but for the legal community: They must choose -- are they with the Constitution [the forces of reason]; or are they with the President [the forces of cut and paste].

Those are the only two options. The legal community has incorrectly chosen the latter; the public has correctly sided with the former. Based on a cursory review of the above arguments, it appears the President's 'best defense" is to expand his reliance on the Addington-cut-and-paste approach. Regardless the legal chicanery, the underlying problems with logic, reason, and planning will manifest themselves in more absurd policies. Th The legal community will have to rely on more non-sense, abuse, and absurdity to justify confidence in their legal profession, not just their transitory legal conclusions.

It is not appropriate for outside counsel, EOP, GOP counsel, DOJ Staff counsel, and White House counsel to have jointly decided that they will put their loyalty to the President before their loyalty to the Constitution. Be that as it may, they shall be reviewed per Geneva to what extent they have or have not fully complied with their legal obligations. America's legal community has failed. It has recklessly assented to this non-sense.

The public must directly confront the legal community and inform them -- as clients -- that legal counsel must openly, publicly decide whether they are for or against the Constitution; and attach with that assertion a visible act that shows the legal community is affirmatively with the Constitution, not with the President's illegal activity.

On the table are the President's alleged war crimes, and decisions not to inform Congress of his decision to defy the law. Also on the table is the option -- as is permitted -- for a New Constitution. If the legal community will not support this Constitution, then the Public is well poised to impose a new Constitution on the legal community that does the following:
A. Strips them of their independence;

B. Denies them the ability to conduct self-reviews;

C. Implements and intrusive oversight-auditing system that compels more public sampling and discussion of legal counsel competence to independently practise law;

D. Imposes legal requirements, obligations, and oversight responsibilities at the Federal/non-state level;

E. Substantially deprives the legal community of their discretion to hide illegal peer misconduct behind the veil of 'peer reviews', but does the opposite: Publicly reviews -- as does any criminal defendant -- the conduct of counsel whereby they are publicly reviewed as any defendant is in a public court

G. Strips the legal community of the discretion to independently act, not act, and refuse to assert their oath by transferring the sole oversight responsibilities from the states to a separate branch of government -- above and beyond the current three branches -- to a branch which independently can conduct reviews regardless which faction [party] controls Congress, the Judiciary, or the Article II branch.

H. Removes the confidence and trust the public has in the legal community, and going forward treats the legal "professionals" as something more appropriate, and commensurate to what they've well (not) demonstrated: That they cannot be trusted to assert their oath; that they must be overseen; and that they must be publicly challenged by knowledgeable clients who put the client before the legal "expert" on issues of conducting litigation, oversight, and other legal issues. Bluntly, the American legal community as it relates to the events 2001-2007 has shown that it is reckless, powerless, incompetent, and incapable of putting the Constitution first. Solutions need to be from the legal community, but they are silent; thus, a solution shall be imposed from without, one that the legal community -- in the absence of settlement and compromise -- is not going to be happy with. Oh, well.

=====

Let's turn to the larger issues that this President and the reckless legal community have attempted to impose on We the People: Utter, abominable reckless defiance of the law; and attached with that stupidity, absurd notions of planning, leadership, oversight, and management. Time for the non-sense to be called what it is: Inconsistent with the Magna Charta and US Constitution.

On the table are two approaches: Either through the law; or open combat. The legal community has chosen to defy the law; and they pretend -- but have failed -- to assert that they are military experts: Failed lawyers make failed combatant commanders. Combat operations are not advocated; however, the duty of the American fighting men and women is to defend the Constitution against domestic enemies. Congress also has the power to raise a militia. On the table is this option: Whether, in the absense of legal community assent to the rule of law, the Congers does -- as it is permitted to do -- raise a militia to militarily target for lawful capture the legal community leadership that defies its oath. This is permitted, the National Command Authority knows these orders would be lawful; and there is nothing the President can do to prevent enforcement of the Constitution and supreme law by the Congress using military force.

As with the situation in Iraq, it was foreseeable that the situation would deteriorate and there would be confrontations. Today's legal "leaders" must decide whether they are going to heed the warnings of We the People and assent to the rule of law and enforce the law against the President and AG; or whether they will, as this President has done in re Iraq, ignore the fair warnings of what is possible, and pretend that Congress has o power to use lawful, deadly force to compel leaders in the legal community to assent to subpoenas, and appear for trial for alleged war crimes.

We the People have the power to elect leaders who will do this. This reckless legal community has done nothing to suggest that this lawful election of combatant commanders within Congress -- and attached with that the implicit decision to use lawful, deadly force against the alleged war criminals in the legal community -- to protect the Constitution.

We the People have spoken during the November 2006 and may speak on any subject regardless any threat, implied threat, or threatened prosecution for speaking on issue of public policy, Constitutional law, or grave breaches of Geneva. We may speak through a New Constitution, or by electing public officials who will openly call for the use of lawful force to defend the Constitution from allegged reckless legal counsel who have defied their oath.

On the table is the simple issue: Whether the legal community will side with the President, or with the Constitution. Rest assured, those who defy the law may lawfully be subject -- as was done during WWII -- to lawful use of combat force to compel assent to the Supreme Law, Constitution, and laws of war. We the People are not required to avoid what is on the table: The prospect that only a New Constitution shall compel the lazy, reckless American legal community to do what it promised to do. We the People have ample evidence that the American legal community is reckless, cannot be relied upon, and puts "something else" before their duty to protect the Constitution.

We the People are not required to avoid the prospect that a New Constitution, with a new oversight model of the American legal community, may be required as the only reasonable alternative to this reckless legal community's defiance of the Supreme Law.

Your error was to listen to Addington, and not the Supreme Law. Nuremburg was fair warning to all legal counsel connected with the White House, DOJ, EOP, and outside counsel that all legal counsel are subject to the Supreme Law, laws of war, and Geneva. It appears the legal community has put itself above the law. This is impermissible.

Either the Legal community chooses the Constitution; or they, by choosing the President, have impersmissibly required We the People to advocate for a New Constitution, which remains an eternal option on the table. Until then, We the People retain the right and power to eternally conduct any review through Grand Jury, open-private investigations, or through any other lawful means legal counsel attached to DOJ, EOP, White House, or outside counsel.

You remain subject to war crimes adjudication; and you may be lawfully executed if convicted by a lawful tribunal adjudicating alleged violations of the laws of war and Geneva Conventions. If so adjudicated and sentence imposed, we need not consider whether you will or will not be a threat to the Constitution.

Choose wisely.

=====

Disclaimer for Affected Counsel

Nothing the above discussion should be construed to be an assertion that any specific by-named legal counsel in the White House, DOJ, or outside counsel has engaged in illegal activity; or that they remain unfit to practise law.

Rather, the above comments should be broadly construed to be a general public comment on the remedies and solutions to repair this Constitution; until there is a New Constitution, the court and grand jury can be left with the conclusion that the existing Constitution and US government framework remains the Supreme Law and government. However, it may be lawfully changed; and all _beliefs_ about the recklessness of the American legal community are Constitutionally protected.

Anonymous wrote on May 22, 2007 7:36 PM:

Senate Judiciary asks for documents related to the decisions: See para 3, page 3 of 3, in re FISA, AUMF, and other decisions:
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/docs/leahy-comey/?resultpage=3&

AG Gonzalez has a Title 28 reporting requirement problem; and Congress knows about it.

sc: "Goat," Gonzalez is Specter's goat.

Anonymous wrote on May 22, 2007 7:36 PM:

Senate Judiciary asks for documents related to the decisions: See para 3, page 3 of 3, in re FISA, AUMF, and other decisions:
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/docs/leahy-comey/?resultpage=3&

AG Gonzalez has